HI Gregg,
Yes, my mistake.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 1:39 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Lists in normative section
Hi Lee, Jason
Lee, I think you meant "informative" instead of "normative" yes? The SC
are normative.
Jason, I agree that moving them to informative might lose them. I think
the phrasing you used though still sounds like a command or
recommendation. How about make them into topics rather than
recommendations
- sentence length and complexity
- number of ideas in sentences (1 is best)
- number of ideas in paragraphs (1 is best)
- use of jargon and other words that may not be familiar to readers of
site.
Etc.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lee Roberts
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 2:04 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: RE: Lists in normative section
I was just thinking if we might go with a generalization instead of
specifics for the success criteria and then put the specifics in the
normative.
Example:
Level 1:
SC: Write clearly and simply.
Normative: 1) One thought per sentence.
2) One thought per paragraph.
3) No double-negatives.
We might be able to apply this concept and it still be testable.
Just my two-cents.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:50 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: Lists in normative section
A quick clarification to my previous message to correct a poorly written
sentence: I think we should decide which of the two potential
misinterpretations Gregg identified is worse, write the guidelines in
such a way as to avoid this misinterpretation while still allowing the
other, then do our best to militate against the latter misinterpretation
so far as possible.
Of course if someone contrives a proposal that avoids both
misinterpretations/misapplications of the guidelines we should accept
it. My opinion at present is that I would rather include the "items to
be considered" in reviews directly under the review requirements
themselves, in the success criteria, rather than in separate "additional
ideas" sections. This doesn't change the substance of the review
requirements: the ultimate test is still whether a review was conducted.
Rather it simply inserts the list of desiderata directly into the text
of the success criteria that establish the requirements for a review.